warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Demolition Man is an excellent case study outlining the problems a society might run into if it attempts to abolish all violence in some way.
A World Without War?
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
I think we are confusing two states of affairs:
1. abolishing violence
2. abolishing armament
Its clear that less violence there is less armament you need not the other way around.
Based on the observation that democracies rarely go to war against each other, I subscribe to the idea that if all nations became democratic in one way or the other, world peace would follow.
How about the sheer logistical challenge of - from scratch - acquiring personnel and equipment to raise an army, move it somewhere and then use it with net profit? It would likely take long enough to arrange for other to found out and respond.
Also, for an individual there are probably more efficient ways to gain power and wealth. Using an army seems so clumsy and inefficient that to ever be a consideration there have to be goals like mass slaughter in the picture.
You mean like this fellow described it:
Jack Handey said:
How about the sheer logistical challenge of - from scratch - acquiring personnel and equipment to raise an army, move it somewhere and then use it with net profit? It would likely take long enough to arrange for other to found out and respond.
Also, for an individual there are probably more efficient ways to gain power and wealth. Using an army seems so clumsy and inefficient that to ever be a consideration there have to be goals like mass slaughter in the picture.
Even if it is relative, there might be special benefits of removing the most extreme cases of poverty (not that easy, I know). I'm thinking of Maslows hierarchy of needs. Join an army to get food and shelter is one thing, but I doubt people would consider it to advance from "Love and belonging" to "Self-actualization".
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
World wide dictatorship with sufficient power to suppress any thought of resistance=World without war.
While an admirable goal on the face of it, there are definitely alternatives that are worse than wars.
While an admirable goal on the face of it, there are definitely alternatives that are worse than wars.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
They tried that. It all went well right until the World War One.
It's a brave new world.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
A world composed of individuals with peaceful natures and disinclined to swallow the lies of mad old men with no investment in the future = world without war.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
We are too organised and centralised to prevent struggles from becoming wars.
I don't know, how did the first army ever formed do it? At some point in our ancient history someone was able to build an army from scratch and use it against his neighbors.
You mention that it would take long enough for others to find out and respond. I agree but what would the nature of this response be? Would the society that has forsaken war rearm itself to defend against the would-be aggressor? Would they form their own army and launch a preemptive strike against the aggressors? If so, wouldn't that shatter the society without war and start the cycle of warfare and violence all over again?
There can't, and won't be peace unless the world is united. This isn't controversial, it's simple political theory. Even neo-Kantian liberals have to concede as much.
United State missed an opportunity with Iraq, though. Made it a territory, deported some Iraqis to the mainland, and settled in a few million people from the United States. Of course there is absolutely no will to do it right now, which is why I'm afraid imperial expansion will come too late for democracy to play a role.
United State missed an opportunity with Iraq, though. Made it a territory, deported some Iraqis to the mainland, and settled in a few million people from the United States. Of course there is absolutely no will to do it right now, which is why I'm afraid imperial expansion will come too late for democracy to play a role.
I don't really follow.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I don't understand. Why couldn't peace just be the result of people realizing that conflict isn't best resolved through violent means?
But what do you mean by "united"? Are you in fact defining "united" to mean a state of peace in the world? In which case it would be impossible to argue with you.
Well, rearming to say 70% of the capabilities of the aggressor could be enough to put a fast campaign out of the picture. Or simply arresting him for having an attack heli without proper license. But it gets a bit too hypothetical now, my point is that I could imagine that even someone with war-era mindset would prefer a different method to reach the objectives rather than building an army from scratch. That would be like a criminal organization using tanks and A-10s to attack a competitor.
Conflict is best resolved through violent means, until and unless a single state grows powerful enough to monopolize the use of violence. It's like Commodore says: pacifistic societies are always going to crumble in the face of aggression unless they can adapt to war.
A state which dominates the entire geopolitical landscape, much like ancient Rome or Persia.
On settlement policy, specifically.
I'm still not sure what you mean. What does 'bank shot' refer to? I haven't heard the expression.
There's nothing positive about the Israeli settlements. But I'm an imperialist, out and out. The Arab world will continue to rip itself apart unless it is subjugated and assimilated into another civic culture.
BS. In past there were fencing and pistols duels to "resolve" problems. We dont have it now becouse it wasnt that good...
That state is bound to crumble becouse it simply cant cope with multifarious demands of its inhabitants.
I am not sure what organisation has to do with it. It would seem rather as helpfull element. Centralisation seems rather neutral in this respect.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I don't think this is true at all. How can it be? If it were true, why would anyone ever attempt to resolve conflict by diplomatic means?
Also, would you claim that WW1 and WW2 were in fact the best means of resolving the political conflicts that led to them?
You might make a good case for WW2, but for WW1? I'm not really seeing it. And if WW2 was the direct result of failing to resolve the conflict of WW1 by violent means, then the "good case" for WW2 collapses as well, doesn't it?
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
I am not sure what organisation has to do with it. It would seem rather as helpfull element. Centralisation seems rather neutral in this respect.
Organisation is helpful, yet it allows struggles to achieve a certain scale. Centralisation causes other people to get involved in things they normally wouldn't because government told them so. And states are quite centralised these days.
But how does any of that leads to or increases/mar prevention of war on itself? You can equate centralisation with some potential problems but not with war. Protest can be well organised and perfectly peaceful. Its the "consciousness element" - the good will behind these which is the decisive factor.
Similar threads
